OUGD501 Design context: Rewritten first things first manifesto

OUGD501
DESIGN CONTEXT
REWRITTEN MANIFEST

For my design piece I decided to introduce a new manifesto challenging the version produced in 2000. Although I agree with most parts of the manifesto I also think that there are flaws with in it. For example the manifesto focusses on the cultural elite and is written and signed by a number of high powered and rich creatives. It fails to acknowledge every day individuals as well as young designers struggling to make money and make their mark on the world. It is often hard for fledging designers to devote large periods of time and effort to charitable, ethical causes and sometimes we have to make slightly unethical choices to make ends meat. The rewritten manifesto isn't blind to the short comings of consumerism, nor is it oblivious to the power of advertising. Instead I try to show a more rational and equal view on consumerism. The practical pieces shows synergy as it is inherently interlinked with the issues discussed in my essay and the focus of the first things first manifestos throughout. I plan to display my own manifesto and the first things first manifesto in contrast with each other to allow the viewer to make up their own mind, and also to display the middle ground between the two.

PURSE STRINGS FIRST

We, the undersigned, are art students studying; graphic design, art direction, visual communication and multimedia development who have been raised in a world in which the techniques and apparatus of advertising have persistently been undermined and disapproved by the cultural elite. Many creatives and academics have criticised and demoralized a designer’s role with in this field; Branding it selfish and self serving.

We as designers apply our skill and imagination to provide the public with exemplary design to sell, Laptops, music devices, mobile phones, designer clothes, fast food, health foods. Commercial work has always paid the bills, but it is more than that, it is a fact that commercial societies have permitted a growing number of its members to define their own preferences, promoting individuality and allowing lower classes to obtain products previously only for the higher classes.

Many of us have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the criticism of a designer’s role in a commercial market. Designers, who have devoted their efforts primarily to advertising, should not be seen as weaker designers, nor are they promoting a harmful code of discourse. Instead they are designing for the good of the public rather than their own integrity and self worth. Putting the consumer’s needs ahead of their own and enriching the diversity of choice with in the consumer market.There maybe pursuits more worthy of our problem solving skills, and perhaps financial security would allow us to design with in this realm, but riddled with the debts of student loans and tuition fees these pursuits are often unobtainable. We are humans and must work for a living, to better our selves. Not all designers have the freedom to devote their time purely to ethical work. We need to make money, we need to put our purse strings first.

We propose an alteration in views in favour of a more rational and realistic view on the roles of a designer. A mind-shift away from the belief that a designer in the commercial field is inadequate and evil.In 1964 and again in 2000 visual communicators signed a call for our skills to be put to a worthwhile use. But who are they to determine “worth wile use” with in our field. Only the societies based on economic and political freedom have made possible a growing standard of living to the majority of its members. Luxuries, earlier available only to the rich and powerful, have become increasingly accessible to common people only in the Western societies. It is a fact that commercial societies have permitted a growing number of its members to define their own preferences. Today we challenge the short sited views of the original manifestos, and strive to decide what our first things first truly are.